Bunnings Pty Ltd v Auburn Council [2004] NSWCA 224
The right-hand sign did not indicate both the name of the person and the business as required by SEPP 64, as the logo and positioning statement referred generally to hardware business but did not sufficiently indicate the name. The primary judge's finding that there were two signs and rejecting the right-hand sign as a business identification sign was a finding of fact not open to appeal, and the signage did not meet the definition for exemption under SEPP 64.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 July 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['signage Approval' 'business Identification Sign' 'state Environmental Planning Policy No 64']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether proposed signage is one sign or two signs' "Whether the right-hand sign is a 'business identification sign' pursuant to SEPP 64" "Interpretation of 'indicates' in the definition of 'business identification sign'"]
Ratio Decidendi
The right-hand sign did not indicate both the name of the person and the business as required by SEPP 64, as the logo and positioning statement referred generally to hardware business but did not sufficiently indicate the name. The primary judge's finding that there were two signs and rejecting the right-hand sign as a business identification sign was a finding of fact not open to appeal, and the signage did not meet the definition for exemption under SEPP 64.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment